RECORD IMPOUNDED 

 SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY 

 APPELLATE DIVISION 

 DOCKET NO. A-0864-22 

IN THE MATTER OF PETITION 

TO FORFEIT FIREARMS, 

CLAIMANT FRANK W. 

FARRELL, JR. 

_______________________________

Submitted October 31, 2023 – Decided December 20, 2023 

Before Judges Whipple and Paganelli. 

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Family Part, Atlantic County, 

Docket No. FO-01-0124-22. 

William E. Reynolds, Atlantic County Prosecutor, 

attorney for appellant, State of New Jersey (James H. 

Lee, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief). 

Respondent Frank W. Farrell, Jr. has not filed a brief. 

PER CURIAM 

 In this one-sided appeal the State seeks review of the judge's November 

15, 2022 order memorializing his January 10, 2022 denial of the State's request 

for Frank M. Farrell, Jr. to forfeit firearms and for an in-camera review of 

Farrell's records and the trial court's denial of reconsideration of the January 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE 

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION 

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
2 A-0864-22

order on October 18, 2022. Because we conclude the judge erred by relying on 

the wrong statute for timeliness and too narrowly interpreting the legislative 

framework, we vacate the orders and remand the matter for proceedings 

consistent with this opinion. 

I.

 We glean the facts and procedural history from the motion record. On 

August 9, 2001, Farrell's wife obtained a temporary restraining order pursuant 

to the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PDVA), N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -35. 

In her complaint, she alleged: 

Defendant was emotionally abusive calling plaintiff a 

whore and other derogatory names and stating plaintiff 

is using sex to get attention, also telling plaintiff is 

unwanted by others. This emotional abuse occurred 

throughout the weekend of August 5-9, 2021. 

Defendant also admitted to plaintiff of doing negative 

things in the past, such as stealing medications.

8/5/21 While the plaintiff was intoxicated the defendant 

sexually assaulted her. Plaintiff does not recall the 

incident but once sober plaintiff questioned the 

defendant as to what happened and defendant admitted 

to taking advantage of the situation having sex with the 

plaintiff. 

August 14-15, 2021 - As plaintiff was trying to get 

away from ongoing situation, the defendant gained 

access to plaintiff's information to discover where the 

plaintiff was temporarily staying. Pla[intiff] went into 
3 A-0864-22

a detox from 8/9-8/17/21 and then made arrangements 

to stay in a hotel after. 

Defendant has sent plaintiff many threatening text 

messages since November 2020 up until recent weeks. 

Defendant has made threats to harm the plaintiff and 

other people close to plaintiff including plaintiff's 

boyfriend. Defendant said he would beat the s[**]t out 

of the plaintiff's boyfriend. 

Further, Farrell's wife alleged a prior history of domestic violence that included: 

March 2021 – defendant used an Ipad as [a] tracking 

device and put [it] in plaintiff['s] vehicle. Defendant 

would then show up to places where plaintiff was 

located. 

Defendant was reading the plaintiff's therapeutic 

journals and using information negatively against 

plaintiff, by bringing it up during moments of issues 

between [the] parties and try[ing] to manipulate 

plaintiff. 

December 2020 – Defendant accessed plaintiff's 

personal bank account and took money. 

April 2021 – Defendant stole plaintiff['s] personal 

[e]ffects such as underwear and admitted to urinating 

on them. 

 Included within the TRO was a "warrant to search for and to seize 

weapons for safekeeping." The warrant pertained to "any and all firearms 

belonging to" Farrell. On August 8, 2021, Farrell was served with the TRO and 

the following firearms/weapons were seized: 
4 A-0864-22

One (1) Remington Model 7600 rifle . . .; 

One (1) Stevens Model 77F shotgun . . .; 

One (1) Mossberg Model 500AG . . .; 

One (1) Lee Enfield Model Mark III rifle . . .; and 

One (1) unknown make and model double barrel style 

shotgun.

On September 28, 2021, Farrell's wife dismissed her TRO by agreement.1

 On October 22, 2021, the State filed a "[p]etition [t]o [f]orfeit [w]eapons 

[p]urstant [t]o N.J.S.[A]. 2C:25-17 . . . N.J.S.[A]. 2C:25-21(d)(3), N.J.S.[A]. 

2C:58-3(c), and N.J.S.[A]. 2C:58-3[(f)]." 

 On December 30, 2021, the State emailed the court and stated: 

[its] position is that complete record review of all 

named physicians and any/all Schedule I-V drugs 

prescribed to [Farrell] are necessary in order to 

determine whether claimant is a drug dependent person 

pursuant to 2C:58-3(c)(2), whether claimant suffers 

from physical defect or disease which would make it

unsafe for him to handle firearms pursuant to 2C:58-

3(c)(3), and/or whether claimant is a habitual drunkard 

which return of firearm would not be in the interest of 

the public health, safety or welfare under 2C:58-

3(c)(5). 

1

 The order of dismissal states that an "agreement was placed under FM-01-

659-21." "The FM docket consists of complaints for dissolution matters 

including: divorce, dissolution of a domestic partnership, civil union 

dissolution, and palimony, as well as related relief in cases where a dissolution 

complaint has been filed." B.C. v. N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Perm., 450 N.J. 

Super. 197, 207 n.8 (App. Div. 2017) (citing N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. 

v. I.S., 214 N.J. 8, 22 n.3 (2013)).
5 A-0864-22

Notably, the State was not aware of claimant's alcohol 

problems, including past commitments, until yesterday. 

After review of medical and prescription records, the 

State may need to amend the petition to move under 

2C:58-3(c)(3) as well. . . . [t]he State needs more 

evidence[] to determine whether the State can return 

firearms to claimant without breaking the law, namely 

2C:58-3(c). 

Therefore, the State requests this [c]ourt conduct an in 

camera review of [c]laimant's medical records, 

including prescription and psychological records. 

On January 10, 2022, the judge heard the parties' arguments. In an oral 

opinion, the judge denied the State's request for forfeiture and an in-camera 

review. The judge found that the return of the weapons was warranted because: 

(1) there was no finding of domestic violence; (2) the temporary restraining 

order was dismissed by an agreement; (3) there was no criminal complaint or 

formal charge; (4) there was no current or present domestic violence situation; 

(5) the State's concerns regarding Farrell were based on "conjecture"; there was 

no evidence to indicate Farrell had issues and the State is "technically seeking 

an opportunity to gather information"; (6) the situation did not warrant an incamera review; and (7) the State's petition was untimely.

On January 14, 2022, the judge stayed the January 10, 2022 order "so that 

the State's motion for [r]econsideration and opposing parties' briefs may be 

adequately reviewed." 
6 A-0864-22

 On October 18, 2022, the judge heard the parties' arguments on the State's 

motion for reconsideration of the January 10, 2022 order. The judge denied 

reconsideration in an oral opinion. The judge described the State's application 

as one for in-camera review of medical records, related to alleged substance 

abuse and mental health issues, that could potentially support an application for 

Farrell to forfeit his weapons. The judge determined that the State had not met 

its burden to establish reconsideration. Further, he found the State's application 

to investigate was inappropriate, and the State had no "ability to seek forfeiture" 

or in-camera review. 

 On November 15, 2022, the judge entered an order memorializing his 

denial of the State's original petition, January 10, 2022, and his denial of the 

State's motion for reconsideration, October 18, 2022. The judge's order required 

that "Farrell's firearms shall be returned within [seven] days of entry of th[e] 

order." 

II. 

We review questions of law de novo. Rowe v. Bell & Gossett Co., 239 

N.J. 531, 552 (2019). A judge's "interpretation of the law and the legal 

consequences that flow from established facts are not entitled to any special 
7 A-0864-22

deference." Ibid. (quoting Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of 

Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995)). 

This appeal involves the State's responsibility and authority under the 

statutes that govern the right to possess firearms. Here, the State's roles are 

implicated under the PDVA, which involves "a law enforcement officer's 

authority to seize weapons," and the State's role in the return of those weapons, 

N.J.S.A. 2C:25-21, and N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3, the statute that regulates the "permit 

to purchase a handgun" and the issuance of a "firearms purchaser identification 

card."2 The statutes are separate but interrelated. Indeed, the PDVA provides 

that the domestic violence court shall consider the "disabilities set forth in . . . 

N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c)" before "the return of . . . firearms." N.J.S.A. 2C:25-

21(d)(3). 

A.

Under the PDVA, when a law enforcement officer "has probable cause to 

believe that an act of domestic violence has been committed" and has 

2

 "N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(a) refers to permits to purchase a handgun, which expire 

after ninety days. N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(a) and (f). A new permit must be obtained 

for each handgun purchase. See N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(f). N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(b) 

refers to firearms purchaser identification cards which are lasting and which 

must be obtained to 'acquire an antique cannon or a rifle or shotgun.'" See In re 

Forfeiture of Pers. Weapons and Firearms Identification Card Belonging to 

F.M., 225 N.J. 487, 491 n.2 (2016). 
8 A-0864-22

"observ[ed] or learn[ed] that a weapon is present on the premises," he or she 

shall "seize[] any firearm . . . any firearm purchaser identification card, or permit 

to purchase a handgun issued to the person accused of the act of domestic 

violence." N.J.S.A. 2C:25-21(d)(1). "Weapons seized . . . shall be returned to 

the owner except upon order of the Superior Court." N.J.S.A. 2C:25-21(d)(3). 

The prosecutor may petition a judge 

within [forty-five] days of seizure, to obtain title to the 

seized weapons, or to revoke any and all permits, 

licenses and other authorizations for the use, 

possession, or ownership of such weapons pursuant to 

the law governing such use, possession, or ownership, 

. . . . 

[Ibid.] 

"If the prosecutor does not institute an action within [forty-five] days of seizure, 

the seized weapons shall be returned to the owner." Ibid. 

Also, a prosecutor 

may object to the return of the weapons on such 

grounds as are provided for the initial rejection or later 

revocation of the authorizations, or on the grounds that 

the owner is unfit or that the owner poses a threat to the 

public in general or a person or persons in particular. 

[Ibid.] 

 Following a hearing 

 
9 A-0864-22

the court shall order the return of the firearms, weapons 

and any authorization papers relating to the seized

weapons to the owner if the court determines the owner 

is not subject to any of the disabilities set forth in 

[N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c)] and finds that the complaint has 

been dismissed at the request of the complainant and 

the prosecutor determines that there is insufficient 

probable cause to indict; . . . or if the court determines 

that the domestic violence situation no longer exists. 

[Ibid. (emphasis added).] 

Therefore, the judge must begin their analysis for the "return of the 

firearms, weapons and any authorization papers" with consideration of the 

"disabilities set forth in" N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c). "[E]ven if a domestic violence 

complaint is dismissed and the conditions abate, forfeiture may be ordered if the 

defendant is subject to any of the disabilities in N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c) . . . ." In re 

F.M., 225 N.J. at 510-11. 

B.

 Under N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(f) "[t]he application for the permit to purchase a 

handgun[;] . . . the application for the firearms purchaser identification card[;]" 

and the application to renew the firearms purchaser identification card all 

include an investigation of the applicant. Included within the investigation is a 

determination whether an applicant is subject to one or more of the disabilities 

listed in N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c). Even 
10 A-0864-22

an applicant for a handgun purchase permit who 

possesses a valid firearms purchaser identification card, 

or who has previously obtained a handgun purchase 

permit from the same licensing authority [is subject to 

an] investigat[ion] . . . to determine whether or not the 

applicant has become subject to any of the disabilities 

set forth in this chapter. 

[N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(e).] 

The State's authority to investigate permeates the entire statutory 

framework because "[a] handgun purchase permit or firearms purchaser 

identification card shall not be issued" to any person that is subject to a disability 

defined in the statute. N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c). 

We conclude the authority to investigate includes those situations where 

the State has petitioned the court, with reasonable evidence that "[a] firearms 

purchaser identification card [holder has become] subject to any of the 

disabilities set forth in [N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c)] . . . ." See N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(f). 

To hold otherwise would render the State helpless in the face of reasonable 

evidence that may warrant further investigation that a weapon owner may be 

subject to a disability. 

C.
11 A-0864-22

Here, the judge found that the State's petition and investigation, seeking 

an in-camera review of Farrell's records, were untimely and improper intrusions 

on Farrell's rights. We disagree. 

First, the judge erred in finding that the State's petition was untimely under 

N.J.S.A. 2C:25-21(d)(3). That statute does require the State to "institute an 

action within [forty-five days] of seizure" and "if the [State] does not . . ., the 

seized weapons shall be returned to the owner." N.J.S.A. 2C:25-21(d)(3). 

Admittedly, the State filed four days after the deadline. However, the judge's 

reliance on N.J.S.A. 2C:25-21(d)(3) was misplaced, because the State sought 

forfeiture under N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(f), which allows a filing at "any time." 

Second, the judge erred in denying an investigation, the in-camera review 

of Farrell's records. We conclude the State's petition was supported by 

reasonable evidence that sustained its legitimate concern that Farrell had 

become "subject to . . . the disabilities set forth in" N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c). The 

power to investigate includes situations where the State has lawfully seized 

weapons and is provided with a certified statement that a weapon's owner may 

have a statutory disability under N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c). Here Farrell's wife 

certified that he: was emotionally abusive; was stealing medications; sexually 

assaulted her; sent her many threatening text messages; and made threats to harm 
12 A-0864-22

her and other people close to her including her boyfriend. The behaviors may 

implicate the statutory disabilities and require investigation. 

We understand the trial court's legitimate concern with allowing the State 

to conduct "fishing expeditions" into people's lives. However, that situation 

does not exist here. Instead, there is a basis to investigate because the certified 

statements from Farrell's wife may implicate the statutory disabilities. 

Therefore, under these circumstances, an in-camera review of Farrell's records 

and, perhaps, further investigation is warranted. The judge erred by too 

narrowly interpreting the statutory framework and in denying the State's request. 

We emphasize the limited reach of our opinion. We do not order 

forfeiture. Forfeiture requires notice and a hearing. N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(f). 

Instead, we vacate the judge's orders and allow for an investigation, including 

the requested in-camera review of Farrell's records. Thereafter, if necessary, a 

meaningful hearing may take place. 

To the extent we have not addressed the State's other arguments we deem 

them without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R.

2:11-3(e)(1)(E). 

 Vacated and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.